The motion that "the bills may proceed without formalities" failed to gain a majority. An equal number of MPs voted 'aye' and 'no', which means that the motion failed.

This motion is a procedural motion and, according to Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, "has the effect of suspending the requirements, otherwise imposed by the standing orders, for stages of the passage of the bill or bills to take place on different days, for notice of motions for such stages, and for the printing and certification of the bill or bills during passage".(Read the relevant part of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice here. ) Because this motion failed, the bill will have go through the usual delays provided by the standing orders.

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

Senator Milne explains that these amendments address the issue of giving free permits to coal fired electricity generators. She says that "there is no public policy purpose for these free permits going to coal fired power stations".(Read the whole explanation of these amendment here, starting from 8:45pm. )

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

Senator Milne explained that "these amendments go to whether or not there should be a restriction on the number of overseas payments that can be bought and used in Australia. The government’s scheme as it stands allows for the unlimited purchase of overseas permits, and we seek to amend this to restrict the purchase of overseas permits to 20 per cent."(Read the whole explanation of these amendment here, starting from 7:30pm. )

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

Senator Milne explains that "[t]he purpose of this particular set of amendments goes to the question of how permits under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme are allocated. The Australian Greens believe that there is no case whatsoever for allocating free permits. We believe that there should be 100 per cent auctioning of these permits."(Read the whole explanation of these amendment here, starting from 4:15pm. )

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

Senator Milne explains that these amendments insert "a mandatory requirement to take into account optimal atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases ... So the minister must have regard to that principle that 350 parts per million CO2e is in Australia’s interests."(Read the whole explanation of these amendment here, starting from 10:56am. )

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The majority voted against a motion to read the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2] for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through before becoming law here. )

This means that the majority of Senators do not want to pass the bills in the Senate and that they will not proceed to become law.

One Liberal Senator, Judith Troeth, crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our FAQ section. )

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Family First Senator Steve Fielding that would have deferred the vote on whether to read the bills for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through before becoming law here. )

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

It would have amended the original motion "That these bills be now read a second time" with the following:

At the end of the motion, add “and that:

(a) the bills, the multi-billion dollar adjustment to the bills, as agreed by the Coalition and the Government in November 2009, and the amendments required to implement that agreement, be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12.30pm on 1 December 2009;

(b) the Minister representing the Treasurer provide to that committee by 30 November 2009, for consideration as part of that inquiry, any modelling or analysis commissioned by Treasury and/or the Department of Climate Change and all documents prepared by Treasury in relation to the August 2009 Frontier Economics report on the economic impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme;(Read that report here (1.6 MB) )

(c) the Senate meet from 1 December to 3 December 2009 to consider the bills;

(d) further consideration of the bills be an order of the day for the day the committee presents its report”.

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The Liberal Party was split on this amendment, with some voting 'aye' along with their National Party colleagues and some voting 'no'. This split within a major party is quite unusual and reflects the controversy of this policy.

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The majority voted against an motion introduced by Greens Senator Bob Brown.

This would have amended the original motion "That these bills be now read a second time" with the following:

At the end of the motion, add:

provided that the Government first commits to entering the climate treaty negotiations at the end of 2009 with an unconditional commitment to reduce emissions by at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and a willingness to reduce emissions by 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 in the context of a global treaty.

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.

This is a procedural motion that Senator Ludwig introduced to ensure that the Senate has sufficient time to finish considering these Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills this week.

The Liberal Party was split in this division with twelve voting in favour of the motion and seven voting against it.(Read more about what it means for a senator to cross the floor and rebel against their party in our FAQ section. )

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The motion that "the bill may proceed without formalities" failed to gain a majority. An equal number of MPs voted 'aye' and 'no', which means that the motion failed.

This motion is a procedural motion and, according to Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, "has the effect of suspending the requirements, otherwise imposed by the standing orders, for stages of the passage of the bill or bills to take place on different days, for notice of motions for such stages, and for the printing and certification of the bill or bills during passage".(Read the relevant part of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice here. ) Because this motion failed, the bill will have go through the usual delays provided by the standing orders.

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne. This means that the motion was rejected.

The motion was the following:

At the end of the motion ["That these bills be now read a second time"], add:

provided that the Government first commits to entering the climate treaty negotiations at the end of 2009 with an unconditional commitment to reduce emissions by at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and a willingness to reduce emissions by 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 in the context of a global treaty.

The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.(Read more about these criticisms here.)

(b) notes the concern expressed publicly by a number of industries that may be potentially affected by the proposed CPRS including BlueScope Steel, Nyrstar, Qantas and Visy; and

(c) calls on the Government to delay the introduction of the proposed CPRS until these concerns are addressed.

absent

No

Not passed by a small majority

How
"voted moderately against"
is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get
50 points,
less important votes get
10 points,
and less important votes for which the MP was absent get
2 points.
In important votes the MP gets awarded the full
50 points
for voting the same as the policy,
0 points
for voting against the policy, and
25 points
for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets
10 points
for voting with the policy,
0 points
for voting against, and
1
(out of 2)
if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes

Points

Out of

Most important votes (50 points)

MP voted with policy

0

0

0

MP voted against policy

1

0

50

MP absent

2

50

100

Less important votes (10 points)

MP voted with policy

0

0

0

MP voted against policy

4

0

40

Less important absentees (2 points)

MP absent*

10

10

20

Total:

60

210

*Pressure of other work means MPs or
Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always
indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less
important vote makes a disproportionatly small
difference.